If you want to go to any on line government service, you have to agree to their conditions or you don't qualify for their on line services. The lawyers for the government services want to put words in your mouth. You can't say, "I didn't agree" because you said you did and you can't say that the lawyers put words in your mouth. Are the conditions reasonable? You can't argue that they are not reasonable. There is no way to do that.

Mostly the conditions never come up. But when they do, you are stuck.

The government can state the rules or they can require you to accept the rules. The latter is much to their advantage.

I was on a grand jury once and the evidence was suggestive but not definitive. The suspect could be bound over for trial based on the suggestive evidence but the prosecution would have trouble getting a conviction with any kind of defense. I said that to the prosecutor. He turned bright red and when the grand jury was called back to vote I was not notified.

The suspect was brought to trial and the jury hung (the defense must have been incompetent)

My point is not every case should go to trial but what the prosecutor wants the prosecutor gets.

UNFAIR!

Last edited by jayjacobus on Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

The supreme court has a purpose to protect people's rights. They do that by ruling on cases brought before them. At times the court has been accused of legislating from the bench. If a president or congress agrees with the ruling nothing will be said but if a president or congress disagrees with the ruling they will scream bloody murder.

The legislature has a supposed purpose of making laws to serve the will of the people (or perhaps 51% of the people). They do that fairly well but not perfectly. If a legislation is found to be against the constitution the legislation will have an opportunity to correct the defect and pass an amended bill. Over many years this can go back and forth between the legislature and the supreme court. So the law may be slow to change. Moreover, the legislators may not want to touch an issue with a ten foot pole.

Two issues which haven't been addressed are banning and bullying. There are no laws for those issues. A person who has been banned must first investigate how and why he was banned. Once he knows he must find a law that fits (remember banning isn't illegal). He needs to make a case, perhaps at great expense and over a long time. Initially the civil court (it is not a criminal issue) may rule against him but when he gets to the supreme court he can make his case to people who want (more than anything else) to protect his rights.

If you see this as ridiculously cumbersome, that's the point. Corporations don't want their employees or ex-employees to have a reasonable recourse.